Quoting Richard Braun (2014-09-23 17:23:49) > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:09:30PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > For me, the question rather is, what constitutes the releases that we > > publish? Some new, exciting features (including considerable bug fixing, > > code re-writes, re-factoring, and so on), on the one hand, or regular > > time-based releases on the other (for example, annually). The former has > > the process that the new features are added, and then there is a > > stabilization period where only bug fixes go in, then the release is > > made, and the latter is basically just a snapshot of the repository at a > > more or less "random" date. Due to lack of manpower to maintain a > > "proper" release process, I see us more on the side of doing snapshots, > > which we can do any time we like. Now is a good time, you say? (I'm not > > disagreeing -- the previous release having been one year ago.) > > > > Given this, and with our last Hurd release having been 0.5, what would > > the next version be? 0.5.1? 0.6? Or, make it obvious that it is just a > > snapshot, and thus call that GNU Hurd 20140923 or similar? > > I suggest time-based releases, using a 0.x scheme (until the major > number can be bumped to 1), so a 0.6 release. These would be snapshots > of the repositories, and 0.x.y releases would include bug fixes, > probably based on demand, for highly annoying bugs. As mentioned, one > release every 6-to-12 months should be enough. The goal here is merely > to provide specific points in time that others can base their work on > (the Nix-based distribution comes to mind).
My thoughts exactly. I'll propose updates for the NEWS files. Justus